Created by Sir_jamesalot
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Why don't people speak ill of the dead?
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 3/6/16
I know some people I wish were dead.
42391 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Online
Posted 3/6/16
Probably some supersitious mumbo jumbo.
48492 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 3/6/16
I decided this time NOT to pick the obvious choice (check for dead spiders).
Posted 3/6/16
It's more fun to speak ill of the living
42391 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Online
Posted 3/6/16

GayAsianBoy wrote:

It's more fun to speak ill of the living


Ha!
3249 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Everywhere
Online
Posted 3/6/16
Same reason no one speaks badly about disabled people (except Trump, but that's a different discussion ) because they can't really defend themselves and have a condition that makes others feel sorry for them.
6667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Portland, Oregon
Offline
Posted 3/6/16
I speak truth, even of the deceased. But I often try to limit this to the positives unless there is a specific reason I should speak out against someone. For me it is the same rule that applies to the living. We have to put out what vibes we want to receive. I just push forward and look for the good. Speaking ill of someone living or not, does not usually accomplish much good. But we all have our moments, There are definitely times when my mouth is faster than my mind
35022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/6/16 , edited 3/6/16
I think it's probably that they don't want to upset the survivors of the deceased.

People do a lot of things that seem irrational and pointless on the surface that actually turn out to be extremely rational and meaningful when more closely examined. Funerals, grave markers, coffins with fancy liners and pillows, eulogies, none of that's for the dead. Everyone knows the deceased is already gone and is never coming back, which is exactly why it hurts and comfort is needed in the first place. Those are all things the living came up with to help deal with the pain of losing someone.

We offer parting words in the form of eulogies to show respect to those who've just lost someone, to indicate that we understand they're in pain for having suffered a loss and we're sorry that they are. When it is someone who experienced the loss directly, like a family member or close friend, delivering a eulogy serves a slightly different purpose: it's an opportunity to say goodbye to that person. When a eulogy is delivered properly the people who've lost someone come away feeling a sense of closure and comfort, however slight. Throwing in negative commentary about the deceased is contrary to the eulogy's purpose even if every bit of the commentary is true. This is also why general eulogies delivered by dispassionate preachers who didn't even know the deceased come across as so distasteful, because these don't fulfill the eulogy's actual purpose.

With the passage of time it gradually becomes more acceptable to bring up the negative aspects of the deceased as it is expected of mourners to try to come to terms with their loss, but overcoming a loss as devastating as having a loved one die is sometimes impossible to completely do. That's why some people just will not hear the negative aspects of their lost loved ones even if years have passed, and sometimes there's just nothing to be done about that. The wound is too deep to heal, so it's better to avoid talking about the negative side of the deceased around that mourner.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 3/6/16

BlueOni wrote:

I think it's probably that they don't want to upset the survivors of the deceased.

People do a lot of things that seem irrational and pointless on the surface that actually turn out to be extremely rational and meaningful when more closely examined. Funerals, grave markers, coffins with fancy liners and pillows, eulogies, none of that's for the dead. Everyone knows the deceased is already gone and is never coming back, which is exactly why it hurts and comfort is needed in the first place. Those are all things the living came up with to help deal with the pain of losing someone.

We offer parting words in the form of eulogies to show respect to those who've just lost someone, to indicate that we understand they're in pain for having suffered a loss and we're sorry that they are. When it is someone who experienced the loss directly, like a family member or close friend, delivering a eulogy serves a slightly different purpose: it's an opportunity to say goodbye to that person. When a eulogy is delivered properly the people who've lost someone come away feeling a sense of closure and comfort, however slight. Throwing in negative commentary about the deceased is contrary to the eulogy's purpose even if every bit of the commentary is true. This is also why general eulogies delivered by dispassionate preachers who didn't even know the deceased come across as so distasteful, because these don't fulfill the eulogy's actual purpose.

With the passage of time it gradually becomes more acceptable to bring up the negative aspects of the deceased as it is expected of mourners to try to come to terms with their loss, but overcoming a loss as devastating as having a loved one die is sometimes impossible to completely do. That's why some people just will not hear the negative aspects of their lost loved ones even if years have passed, and sometimes there's just nothing to be done about that. The wound is too deep to heal, so it's better to avoid talking about the negative side of the deceased around that mourner.


It's selfish of the mourners to be the only ones to have closure and deny the feelings of people that are affected positively by the situation.
And I think grave sites and grave stones are there to inconvenience other people and make them feel bad because someone else feels bad.
35022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/6/16 , edited 3/6/16

Sir_jamesalot wrote:

It's selfish of the mourners to be the only ones to have closure and deny the feelings of people that are affected positively by the situation.


This is what the ride home from the reception is for. That's when thoughts like these often surface, and as I said: the moratorium on discussion of the negative aspects of the deceased isn't an unlimited window. Mourners are expected to try to come to terms with their loss and become receptive to criticism of their lost loved ones if they can. If they can't then therapy should be considered, and if therapy doesn't work then people should basically just leave the subject silent around that particular mourner. If not for them, do it so as to avoid a headache.


And I think grave sites and grave stones are there to inconvenience other people and make them feel bad because someone else feels bad.


I'm not sure about that. I've always seen them as places people can go to reconnect with their loved ones and continue to indulge in the sort of comfort that giving the dead fluffy pillows for their coffins does by leaving offerings and such. Maybe such a site isn't really necessary since the same effect could be accomplished by other means and ultimately poses a public health hazard and wastes valuable space in locations with high population densities, but that seems to be the idea behind them regardless.
9764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 3/6/16 , edited 3/6/16
I suspect that some guilt plays a part, oftentimes. Commonly, those who raise a fit over "speaking ill of the dead" didn't hesitate to tear into those very same people when they were alive.

"Don't speak ill of the dead" proves to be partly code for; "don't say unpleasant things about who I like," and really has little to do with the people in question having had passed away. It's fair game to insult Hitler, Stalin, Napolean, etc. Yet, as soon as people they like come up, it's suddenly wrong. Favoritism.

Personally, my opinion hardly shifts, whether someone is alive or dead. I just may be a little more sentimental, if they're gone. If I don't like someone when they're alive, I won't abruptly change my tune.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 3/6/16
Because you're attacking someone who can't fight back. You'd get the same reaction for shit talking someone who became mentally disabled.
2604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Whale Island
Offline
Posted 3/6/16
I try to avoid speaking ill of anyone dead or alive and tend to focus on their 'positives' if they have none then i simply don't talk about them and as for the actual poll i would say people tend not to speak ill about the dead because they fear the judgement society will cast on them.

ps i voted for checking for dead spiders that spider that i knocked a leg off the other night hasn't been seen since and i cannot find any dead spiders
Posted 3/6/16
You'll get haunted!!
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/7/16 , edited 3/7/16
It depends. Most people are born, live out meaningless lives, then die obscure deaths. Not really anything to talk about there. Some people do horrible things with their lives and thus deserve nothing but scorn regardless of whether or not they are breathing. And some people do great things with their lives and should be respected regardless if their heart is still beating
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.